Summary: The complainant requested the details of all complaints about a named judge, including their nature, details and results of investigations carried out. The public authority applied section 40(5) and neither confirmed nor denied whether information was held in respect to this request. It did this because it felt that confirming or denying whether information would be held would expose personal data of the named individual and this would have been unfair. The Commissioner has considered this case and has determined that the public authority-™s position is correct. However, he did find a breach of section 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld